On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:16:39AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >For what it's worth, I agree with Scott. I'd rather see a new and >separate driver (presumably igb(4)) than a "hacked up" em(4) driver >trying to handle tons of IC revisions. A good example of the insanity >the latter causes is nve(4) vs. nfe(4). :-) <metoo>A separate driver is probably cleaner.</metoo> I'll just make the comment that if a separate driver is written, there needs to be a clear way for an end user to identify what driver is needed/preferred for his chipset. We already have cases like re(4)/rl(4) and sym(4)/ncr(4) where some chips are supported by two drivers - though generally only one driver fully supports the chip. This sort of thing is confusing for end users. -- Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:20 UTC